9/11 Truth Movement's Credibility Gap

Discussion in '9/11' started by cooky, Dec 6, 2011.

  1. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why would you want to to prove that,skeptic?
     
  2. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You can laugh all you want. But not a single engineering schools has built a self supporting model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% or less. In fact you can't name a school that says it even tried. The schools can't even provide accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers.

    And at the end of my video I have the hilarious model that MIT put on national television in 2002. Funny how it springs back up without actually sustaining any damage.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo"]WTC Modeling Instruction & Testing in the Real World - YouTube[/ame]

    Newton's birthday is coming up soon. Most people need to be kept from understanding simple physics so they can be impressed by people with degrees claiming to know physics. Newton's stuff is 300 years old. 7th and 8th graders should be able to hadle this if properly explained. But our schools are designed to be expensive and dribble out information. People claiming to know physics but not demanding accurate mass distribution data. Physics without data. Yeah Right!

    psik
     
  3. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Another Groundhog Day post.

    That vid should be considered spam at this point.
     
  4. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    STILL going on about models, Psyk? :lol: I would have thought you would give up on that given the fact you're claims are so ridiculously childish and ill informed.

    People don't build scale models because models don't act like the real thing. Period. They use computer models and physics. Know what they found? They found the buildings collapse in computer models pretty much like they collapsed in real life. By they I mean the NTSB and several other architectual and scholastic entities. Not ONE computer model has shown the buildings should remain standing. These are the computer models used by structural engineers to test their designs.

    Yet we're suppose to believe you, a guy who actually believes a stick, washer and paper "model" is suppose to accurately model the dynamics of a 110 story building collapsing? :lol: I don't think so.
     
  5. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LMAO, ROFL and all the rest. :mrgreen:

    Modeling the World Trade Center collapse with washers and paper??? Are you kidding me????

    And then calling out engineering schools and an engineer on their work???

    That's freakin' HILARIOUS!!!

    Or . . . .

    that paper is really strong stuff. Maybe they should have used in the columns of WTC. :crazy:

    That video is one of the best illustrations SUPPORTING the thread title that I have seen in a long time.:mrgreen:
     
  6. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In my mind there is convincing corroborating evidence for my conclusion that 93 crashed in Penn.

    Asserting that flight 93 did not crash near skanksville without providing any evidence exemplifies the 'credibility gap' existing in aspects of the 9/11 truth movement. Essentially, you have concluded that the official explanation of flight 93s crash is false yet you have not provided any evidence to support your conclusion. Without providing any evidence to support you conclusions why should anyone take you seriously?
     
  7. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am not modeling the World Trade Center. I am modeling a gravitational collapse. It is not my fault that some people claim that what happened to the north tower was a gravitational collapse. The WTC was a tube-in-tube structure. My model is not. But it still had to support its own mass throughout its height.

    Purdue produced this stupid simulation:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg"]Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center - YouTube[/ame]

    We know an airline collided with the north tower so what was the point. But the core columns don't move as a result ot the impact. And yet the NIST provided empirical data on the south tower deflecting and oscillating as a result of the impact. You people who worship authority instead of analyzing simple physics for yourselves are a hoot.

    So why aren't the people who claim it was a gravitational collapse willing to provide accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. Why aren't the so called engineering schools demanding the information? If we can get high school kids to understand why a gravitational collapse could not possibly happen then the engineering schools will have to explain the egg on their faces.

    The Laws of Physics do not give a d(*)m(*) about schools or patriotism. The schools are supposed to teach the correct physics. Deal with it.

    You can laugh at Newtonian Physics all you want. Physics is incapable of caring about stupidity either.

    psik
     
  8. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The laws of physics are not on your side then because Judges care about the laws of physics if they can prove a crime took place.

    If you have the proof, take it to a judge and let her see it. If you don't have the proof, stay here and let us wonder why you're not willing to share your magnificent discovery of the violation of said laws of physics.

    There has to be a reason you're on this obscure message board rather than Stockholm, MIT or in Princeton, right? I mean you could be showing all of these so-called experts your discovery but no, you're at politicalforum.com and showing us. There has to be a reason....

    Gee, I wonder what that reason is.
     
  9. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nah, we are just laughing at you. Newtonian Physics are no laughing matter. Psik on the other hand....

    Go go to court, bring your evidence and show the engineering world where they are wrong.

    What are you waiting for?
     
  10. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do you think no one has taken your ideas seriously? The reason not one engineering publication exists in support of your position is because the physics are consistent with a progressive collapse. Unfortunately, there isn't anything funny about those who mistake the worship of reason for the worship of authority.

    BTW, your posts exemplifies the credibility gap enumerated in the OP. Thank you.


    http://ascelibrary.org/emo/resource/1/jenmdt/v133/i3/p308_s1?isAuthorized=no

    http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-TMGC200106001.htm

    http://ascelibrary.org/emo/resource/1/jenmdt/v134/i10/p892_s1?isAuthorized=no

    From the abstract of the final link:

    Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not.
     
  11. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are welcomed. They are talking that crush down crush up crap from Bazant that violates Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.

    One story can't be crushed. The bottom story of the falling mass would have to be crushed simultaneously with the top story of the stationary mass. This effect is demonstrated in my model. Ryan Mackey used a solid block in his conceptualization to avoid the 3rd Law.

    If what they describe is possible then they should be able to build a physical model that does it. Of course such experimentation might be SCIENTIFIC. We can't have that. Because the way reality works it does not really give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about differential equations. The physics comes first and the math must conform to the physics. Math can be just another language for some people to lie with.

    The accreting mass in my model arrests. The conservation of momentum alone dictates that any collapse take more than 12 seconds.

    psik
     
  12. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you afraid to answer my question? You certainly are dodging it. Please answer it.
     
  13. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why don't you publish?
     
  14. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is your question suede?
     
  15. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It's only grade school physics.

    It IS published.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo"]WTC Modeling Instruction & Testing in the Real World - YouTube[/ame]

    It is not my fault that your fancy engineering schools can't produce a grade school physics model that will do what they claim. They are the ones that need to keep people ignorant and will look like fools after ten years if they explain how physics really works. They can't even tell everyone the amount of steel and concrete on every level while they wave around differential equations.

    That 2nd link is in Chinese. Are you admitting that the Chinese can do what Americans can't?

    The 3rd link is just another version of Bazant crap.

    psik
     
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why don't you challenge the engineering community directly, instead of spamming lightly populated message boards?
     
  17. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Link please????
     
  18. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the FBI said most of the plane was buried (one source said up to 80%, which is logical for how relatively little debris remained above ground) and that amount makes up mostly where they found the alleged 95% recovered debris at, but not only was there not 80% of the plane buried, but it turned out that NOTHING was buried, what is a rational person supposed to make of that?
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Deliberately misleading. The FBI didn't.
     
  20. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're lying.

    There are pictures of several buried parts including what looks like an engine rotor.

    Oh yeah, your silly contention is that it was buried by the plotters only to be recovered. And that the several witnesses who saw the plane are lying. And that the several ATC's in different locations were all lying. And that the media is lying. And that the coroners and others who did the DNA testing to identify the passengers are lying.

    So we can believe all of these non-connected people....dozens if not hundreds or we can believe you; a poster on a message board hung up on a percentage of plane that is buried.....

    No contest. I think you're lying.
     
  21. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not laughing at Newtonian Physics. I'm laughing at your ridiculous model and the comparisons to what happened to WTC.

    Oh, and the seriousness of you in your video as you "prove" why the gravitational collapse could not have happened. That's pretty funny as well. :-D

    Wow, now that's incredibly ironic. :mrgreen:
     
  22. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you don't know what a PROOF is. My model is only a DEMONSTRATION and it is not a tube in tube structure.

    But it does make one wonder why EXPERTS don't supply accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the WTC. I cannot claim that the mass distribution down my demonstration model is the same as the WTC because I do not have the data on the WTC. No one does after TEN YEARS.

    psik
     
  23. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe to those who don't understand how to live up to their part of the deal.
     
  24. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hypothetically speaking, if the FBI made such claims when nothing was buried a rational person would have to conclude the FBI was lying. Alas, you have provided ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to support your claims. As such, I find your position to be very irrational.
     
  25. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Glad to see you have the guts to publicly agree with me on that point.

    Would you like me to proceed with this topic on this thread, or on my thread entitled:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...ly-lacking-flight-93-mostly-buried-claim.html

    Curious, why did you type that in all caps? Was there a bit of anger behind the reason?
     

Share This Page